W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > September 2015

Re: dwbp-ISSUE-166: Should the data vocabularies section be removed? [Best practices document(s)]

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:09:01 +0200
Message-ID: <56033F1D.2000806@few.vu.nl>
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
CC: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bernadette,

Sorry for a delayed response.
For the record, I approve of most of these suggestions.

The only one that I'm a bit hesitant about is the one with BP15
> - Concerning BP15, I propose to keep like this and to move it to  the metadata section.

I see your point, because documentation is a sort of metadata. But it may be lost in the metadata section in which the metadata is about datasets, while vocabulary metadata is a a "meta-meta" level. Also in many cases (hopefully) the data publisher wouldn't have to create new documentation for vocabularies, but just point to existing documentation. All the other metadata BP are about creating metadata (I assume).

By the way I am tempted to re-phrase the title of the best practice as "Use and publish documented vocabularies" (and maybe do some minor adaption in the  practice's text to fit this). This would be more in line with the focus on "use" and less on "create" vocabularies.

Similarly BP 16 could be re-worked as "Use and publish shared, open vocabularies"...

Antoine

On 9/14/15 4:10 PM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> Thanks! I agree that we should vote for this during the F2F or in the next call. In the following, I tried to summarize our discussion in order to make it easier to make a proposal. Please, feel free to complement or adjust.
>
>
> - Should we keep BP16, BP17 and BP18 that refer to vocabularies publication?
> If we're gonna keep them, then the introduction of the section should be reviewed to make it more clear that BP deal with data vocabularies reuse and publication.
>
> - Should we keep BP20? If we're gonna keep BP20, then the description should be rewriteen to remove the word creating: "When creating or re-using a vocabulary for an application, a data publisher should opt for a level of formal semantics that fit data and applications."
>
> - Concerning BP15, I propose to keep like this and to move it to  the metadata section.
>
> IMO, it's possible to keep these BP with the proposed updates.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernadette
>
> 2015-08-14 11:44 GMT-03:00 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>:
>
>     Hi Bernadette,
>
>
>
>
>              Actually the word 'create' appears only once in the BPs: in BP 20. And there, it appears next to 're-use' and honestly I'd be more than ok keeping only the 're-use' word in this BP.
>
>
>         Maybe BP20 can be mixed with BP19. IMO it would be better to provide guidance on how to choose an existing vocabulary instead of how to choose the right formalization level when creating a new one.
>
>
>
>     Note again that BP20 is about creating *and* re-using, so if we just remove the word "create" from there, then it's just about re-using vocs. Wouldn't this be simpler than trying a full merge?
>     NB: I'm not against it, see below. But I'm trying to be realistic at our use of resource: there's a lot of people to have discussions, but few (and I feel it becomes fewer) to implement things afterwards. So we need a good case.
>
>
>
>              About BP 15 vs BP 19: in BP 15 'terms' refers to words in human language (well, I think - I was not the one writing this one). The other practices (BP 16-19) focus rather on the 'technical' resources (OWL classes and properties, SKOS concepts) that we construct. These artificial resources are the first-class citizens of the 'vocabularies' (OWL ontologies, SKOS concept schemes) defined in the intro of the section.
>
>              I think (again, to take with a pinch of salt) that BP 15 and BP19 reflect that there are many levels of interoperability/comparability: one rather technical (BP19) and one that rather focuses on explicitly grounding 'soft' semantics in the practices of given organizations or applications (BP15).
>
>
>         I agree!
>
>
>              The problem is that we won't ever be able to have a crystal clear formulation because:
>              - 'term' is really the right notion to refer to the words and meanings as vehicled by natural languages [1]
>              - many people use 'terms' to refer to OWL classes and properties [2]
>              - natural language terms appear in the (artificial/technical/web) 'vocabularies' as the labels of the classes, properties, concepts that are in these vocabularies.
>
>
>         Maybe, instead of "Use standardized terms" it should be use "Use existing vocabularies or standards to describe metadata". In this case, a vocabulary provides definitions for terms and a standardized term will be a term defined by an existing or standard. This is just an initial thought that needs to be refined :)
>
>
>
>
>     Are you suggesting this for BP15? But then we blur the difference between BP15 and BP19, if in both we use "vocabularies" in a way that hints at the 'formal' vocabularies (OWL, XML Schemas).
>
>     Unless we're considering a big "re-use vocabularies" best practice, which would in general advocate the re-use of existing classes and properties, and in the detail advocate to pick these vocabularies with a right formalization level (current BP20) and 'semantically grounded' in the right terminologies.
>
>     This could work. But is it a level of granularity people would be happy with?
>
>     Maybe this can be suggested for a vote in a coming call or at the F2F. Again, keeping in mind the editorial resources at hand, svp.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Antoine
>
>
>
>
>              [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology
>              [2] http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology
>
>              On 7/29/15 12:31 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote:
>
>                  Hi all,
>
>                  In May we started a discussion about the Data Vocabularies section [1] and we couldn't reach a consensus [2]. It is really important that we come back to this discussion and reach consensus before the next DWBP draft's publication.
>
>                  I still think that the creation of vocabularies is out of the scope of the document. However, BP16(Document vocabularies), BP17(Share vocabularies in an open way) and BP18(Vocabulary versioning) are more related to the publication of vocabularies than to the creation. In this case, maybe we could keep these BP and change a little bit the introduction of the section to say that BP are related just to the usage and publication of vocabularies. Then, in this case BP20(Choose the right formalization level) should be removed.
>
>                  I also want to discuss the relationship between BP15(Use standardized terms) and BP19(Re-use vocabularies). I am not sure if we should talk about the use of standardized terms or the re-use of vocabularies or both. If we won't discuss the creation of vocabularies then maybe BP-19 should also be removed.
>
>                  Looking forward to your comments!
>
>                  Thanks!
>                  Bernadette
>
>                  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150625/#dataVocabularies
>                  [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0038.html
>
>                  2015-05-21 11:15 GMT-03:00 Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org> <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%252Btracker@w3.org>> <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org> <mailto:sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot%252Btracker@w3.org>>>>:
>
>                       dwbp-ISSUE-166: Should the data vocabularies section be removed? [Best practices document(s)]
>
>         http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/166
>
>                       Raised by: Bernadette Farias Loscio
>                       On product: Best practices document(s)
>
>         https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0038.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                  --
>                  Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>                  Centro de Informática
>                  Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>         Centro de Informática
>         Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 00:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:41 UTC